that we are responsible for acts of omission as well as commission, the Senator is chargeable with a full share of guilt for whatever wrong the admission of California may be supposed to infict.

It is well known to you, Mr. President, that I have never justified the admission of California; and in that respect I have no inconsistencies to answer for. In the last speech I made upon the compromise, I stated distinctly and emphatically that my original opinions were unchanged; that I submitted to it because, among other things, resistance was a folly and a madness. Two of the most powerful Southern States had given overwhelming majorities for the bill. Did the Senator expect me to go home and preach the duty of secession from Tennessee and Kentucky-from Virginia, Maryland, Texas, Missouri, North Carolina-from all but the few States usually designated as the "cotton States?" Did he expect me to aid him in the establishment of a little Confederacy upon the Gulf, within whose narrow limits such men as the Senator might figure conspicuously? I resisted the passage of the law. When passedand by the aid of Southern men who had as good a right to judge as I had-I submitted to a decision I could not prevent.

The Senator says I denounced the admission of California as unconstitutional. It will be difficult for him to find such language in any speech of mine. But suppose such was the tendency of my argument, was I to insist on that opinion as infallible in opposition to the opinions of so many Southern men older and abler than I am? My own construction of the Constitution would of course govern me, so long as I was called on to vote or speak in this Chamber; but when the matter had passed from us, when it became a question of submission or civil war, I was fully at liberty to distrust my own judgment, and to hesitate before I advised a resort to that last dreadful alternative. I trust that I am free from the arrogance of supposing that my judgment is infallible, and that no man can be an honest and incorruptible friend of the South whose opinions do not coincide with mine. I did not believe, and I would not say, that many of our best men (yourself included) were either traitors to the South or ignorant of the Constitution. I thought it quite as likely that I might be mistaken as that you were, and acted accordingly.

The Senator says, that at one time I counselled a dissolution of the Union. Not so. The very speeches from which he has read prove the utter falsity of the charge. On the 11th of February, 1850, in the speech from which he has read, I used this language:

"I know that to me individually there has been attributed a deliberate design to dissolve this Union. Great God! what have I to gain by such a course? I have no bitter enmities against any section, or against any party. I have no disappointed aspirations urging me on to desperate expedients. There is not in this broad land a single individual with fewer motives to disturb its harmony. I have friends, and warm ones, in all its parts. For a long time I commanded a New England regiment. For a long time I was associated with Northern men in all the scenes which make up the changeful draina of a soldier's life. Does any one suppose that I can contemplate with satisfaction the possibility of standing face to face as foes with those by whom I have so often stood side by side as friends? The charge is a gross absurdity; but even absurdities may conie to be believed by constant repetition."

How was it possible for me to have used stronger language in repelling the charge of disunion? It seems to me that it would have been impossible to select words of plainer import. Again, sir, I said:

"Much of this I cannot prevent; but when the charge is made here in my presence, that I am a factionist, or that those who act with me are so, I shall repel it in terms which admit of no double meaning. Sir, I do not believe that there is a single man in the entire South who desires disunion for itself."

Here I not only repelled it for myself, but for all who were acting with me. At that day I believed what I said. At that day I believed there was not a traitor to be found in the broad savannahs of the South. I regret that I have been compelled to change that opinion. In that respect I have been inconsistent; and if the Senator had based his charge upon that ground, I should have entered no defence. It is with pain and mortification I acknowledge there are those among us who have avowed not merely a willingness but an anxiety to level this fair fabric with the ground. I know that in the eyes of such men I have committed a deadly sin. But it is one of which I have

not repented; and I now repeat, that as long as a hand of mine can be raised to prevent it, not one stone, not one atom, of that glorious edifice shall be removed.

Another extract, and I shall leave this branch of the subject. It is from my speech of the 20th of February, 1850, in reply to Mr. CLAY:

"The Senator is mistaken if he supposes he can say anything of the possible consequences of disunion which has not occurred to us. We have often manifested our sense of the evils of disunion, and never more so than at the present time. We do not mean to dissolve," &c.

After these emphatic declarations, made at all times, not only during the pendency of the compromise measures, but before their introduction; not made after it was ascertained that Southern men had voted for and sustained them, but before I could possibly know what course they would pursue, what right did any man have to suppose that I would advocate secession, both from the North and a large portion of the South? The truth is, that no man did believe it. No one at that day dreamed of disunion, save as a desperate remedy for intolerable oppression. None looked to it as a thing to be desired. It was contemplated by all with a shudder, although some of us certainly believed it might become a necessity; for whatever violent language may have been used by me or others, there was an excuse in the attending circumstances not now to be found. We came it was alleged had been denied us by the previous here claiming certain rights and privileges, which Congress, of which the Senator from South Carolina was a member. In that state of the case, smarting under what we believed to be serious and aggravated wrongs, it was not to be expected that the language employed in our speeches would be characterized by great moderation. In that speech of mine upon the Vermont resolutions, which has so delighted the Senator from South Carolina, I did comment, in strong terms, upon many acts of injustice which had been perpetrated upon the South. I took occasion to warn Northern men that they must not only pause, but they must retrace their steps. They did so. Previous to that time, every northern State, except Iowa, had instructed their Senators to vote for the Wilmot proviso. Before the session was half over, the proviso was dead. In some cases, the resolutions of instructions were repealed, and in others, those thus instructed took the responsibility of voting for territorial bills without it. We had no bill for the recapture of fugitive slaves. That Congress passed a bill in all respects such as the South demanded. We had been, ever since the date of the Missouri compromise, excluded from all territory north of 360 30'. This restriction was removed, and a territorial government established for Utah, whose southern boundary line is 370, containing an express guarantee that it might come into the Union with or without slavery, as her constitution might prescribe. The spirit of fanaticism which had been abroad at the North everywhere began to disappear, and the action of both Legislatures and Conventions indicated a determination to respect the constitutional rights of the South. There are now two Senators on this floor whose election was a consequence of this happier state of feeling. I mean the Senator from New Jersey, [Mr. STOCKTON,] and the Senator from Rhode Island, [Mr. JAMES.] I know they will not take it unkind in me for thus referring to them, and adding, as I gladly do, that there are no two men in this body more firmly determined to mete out equal and exact justice to every section of the Union. Could I, with any regard to truth or decency, with these facts staring me in the face, persist in a course of denunciation which could only have the effect of exasperating those who were conscious of doing all they could to merit kinder treatment? Such a course might, indeed, have been gratifying to the Senator from South Carolina, and to those who, like him, seek a dissolution of the Union; but it would neither have been creditable to me, nor acceptable to the honest and patriotic people I represent. If the same state of things existed now which did exist at the date of that speech, it is quite possible I might employ language as strong as any then used. But that state of things has passed away, and it is the part of a good citizen to bury with it all memory of the bitterness to which it gave rise.

The Senator has been exceedingly cautious not to touch that part of my argument which relates

to the territorial bills. Even he felt that was impregnable, and he chose rather to indulge in complaints of my laudations of the Union. On that, as on other points, he misunderstands me. I sing no hosannas to a Union which is one in name only, not in spirit. I do not wish to see this people tied together by a hateful bond, while discordant interests and rankling jealousies gangrene its separate parts. It was not such a Union which Washington and Jackson meant when they urged us to preserve it. They wished-I wish-all of us should wish-a Union of a different kind-in which each member cherishes an habitual respect for the rights of the others-in which all are taught to believe that it is impossible for any of its members to deliberately intend to do wrongthat some charity is due to errors and mistakesthat injustice must be temporary only-that a common interest, the recollections of past glory, and the anticipations of future greatness cannot fail in the end to correct whatever evils passion or prejudice may have spoken into being. It is for a Union of this sort only that I have been earnestly pleading with my countrymen. The Senator has been as zealously engaged in seeking to destroy it. His mission is to inculcate jealousies of the North. Addressing himself to those who have not the time or the opportunity to investigate for themselves, he says that the people of the Northern States are a horde of robbers, whose chief occupation consists in devising schemes to rob the South-that there is among them a reckless disregard of law, which prevents the execution of Congressional enactments-and that murder has ceased to be a punishable offence, if committed upon a citizen of the South in pursuit of his property. It is not surprising that he has thus succeeded, to some extent, in estranging one portion of the country from the other. His colaborers at the North have also met with some success. It has thus become the duty of every patriot to address himself to the task of removing these discontents, and to inculcate the high duty of loving one another. Let the voice of the demagogue everywhere be answered by truth and reason, and we shall soon witness a better and a brighter era.

With his usual inaccuracy, the Senator from South Carolina has ventured to assert that no State has ever been admitted into the Union without a previous act of Congress, authorizing the adoption of a constitution and form of State government. The Senator might have learned, even from my speeches if he had read them for any purpose but to garble and distort, how utterly at variance this assertion was with the facts. I had occasion once before to refer to all the acts of Congress upon the subject, and now read from the tables then prepared, the accuracy of which cannot be questioned.

In Vermont there was no act of Congress authorizing the people to form a constitution and State government; in Kentucky there was none; in Tennessee there was none; in Maine there was none; in Arkansas there was none; in Michigan there was none; in Florida there was none, and in Iowa there was none. Here, sir, are nine States which, according to the logic of the Senator, are illegally and unconstitutionally members of this Confederacy. Some of them were admitted immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, when the framers of that instrument themselves held seats in Congress, but no one heard at that day of the miserable quibble that "States "only could be admitted. The practice of the Government, from its foundation, has been to look to the attending circumstances. In some cases they have passed acts authorizing the establishment of State governments; in others they have not. They have always claimed and exercised the power of dispensing with formalities, and of being governed by what seemed to be the public good.

The Senator from South Carolina exultingly informed us that he was performing the same operation upon me that I had performed upon Mr. Foote. I think he has found out by this time that he had a troublesome subject. The operator himself has not escaped without suffering. But he may console himself by the reflection that he is not alone. He is not the first man who has undertaken the task and regretted it before it was concluded. I did quote extracts from some of Mr. Foote's speeches; but it was done in a spirit of kindness and courtesy, with none of that rancor

ous bitterness which characterized the effort of the Senator from South Carolina. It was sudden and unpremeditated-not brooded over for months. I did not hug to my bosom a cherished hatred, and watch an opportunity to stab the reputation of another.

The extract from my speech which has been selected by the Senator as the theme of his discourse, is not the part which rankled. He has chosen to dwell upon that, but I know well where the sting was found. I did not express any great admiration for his abilities, and that is the wound his vanity could not pardon. Sir, he had no right to complain of my denouncing, in strong terms, his disunion sentiments. I but followed an example he had set me. When John Q. Adams presented a petition in the House of Representatives, praying a dissolution of the Union, a resolution was immediately introduced to expel him. After much discussion, Mr. Boots, of Virginia, moved to lay it on the table. The Senator from South Carolina voted against the motion, thus showing that, in his opinion, Mr. Adams ought to be expelled for merely presenting a petition in favor of disunion. I have not said the Senator ought to be expelled. I have said nothing of him as strong as that vote said of Mr. Adams, and yet the crime of the one was as nothing, compared to that of the other. Mr. Adams acted in accordance with what he believed to be the right of the people, to be heard by petition. Mr. RHETT, for himself, proclaims again and again upon this floor that he is a disunionist. I shall not indicate what punishment he deserves, if measured by his own standard.

' matters much further than we did in 1832, but 'then Tennessee would have been arrayed against 'South Carolina, Kentucky against Virginia, and 'other Southern States against each other, and that 'would have defeated the very object we had in 'view. My object was to consolidate the whole 'South, to unite them upon one platform, and I 'never would do any act which could estrange one 'portion of them from another." That was his policy, honestly entertained, however wrong I may think it to be. But as for the secession, the peaceable secession of a single State, he always knew it was madness. It was something which his great mind could not comprehend.

I am charged with saying, on a former occasion, that disunion might be peaceable. True, I did say so, and I say so again. If the whole of the Southern States should determine to leave the Union, I think they would be permitted to go peaceably, because any attempt at coercion would be folly. But even then I have no idea that peace could exist for any length of time. With a long line of frontier, upon which posts and garrisons would necessarily be kept up by both parties, causes of dissension would soon arise, and war, with all its evils, would soon be upon us. That, however, is a totally different thing from the attempt of one, or two, or three States to go out by themselves. In that event, force would certainly be used. Those whose sympathies were on the side of the invaded State, would rush to her rescue, and thus the whole Republic might become involved in a war which would terminate only with the termination of our liberties.

The Senator complains that I went from WashThe Senator arraigns my vote upon the bound-ington a "submissionist." I did go from here preary of Texas, and, as usual, falls into error. In-pared to submit to the law, and to perform my part deed, sir, while listening to him, I felt utterly astounded that, after so long a preparation, he should have been so wholly uninformed. The Texas bill, for which you and I voted, never formed a part of the "omnibus." It was introduced by the Senator from Maryland, [Mr. PEARCE, after the "omnibus " was killed. It established for Texas totally different boundaries, and gave to her nine hundred miles on the Rio Grande, and enough territory for two States more than Mr. Calhoun said belonged to her.

as a good citizen under it. I went from here with the impression that although we had not obtained all we asked, still we had obtained something with which we could afford to be content. When I reached Alabama I found demagogues haranguing the people all through the State, endeavoring to persuade them that they had been wronged, outraged, and robbed; and I did there what I hope I shall do on all similar occasions-I dared to get upon the stump and tell them the truth. The August election proved that the people were with me, for there was not one solitary candidate in the whole State of Alabama who did not, before that election closed, deny that he was a secessionist or disunionist. A man could not have been elected constable in any respectable beat in the State, who would have proclaimed such sentiments as have been uttered by the Senator from South Carolina.

Sir, I am a submissionist, and the people of my State are submissionists; but we are Southern Rights men nevertheless. Better Southern-Rights men than those who not long since were warring

The Senator descanted on the fact that I said I would not vote to repeal the bill abolishing the slave trade in the District of Columbia; and announced, with great emphasis, that it is not the mere fact that the slave trade is abolished in the District of Columbia to which he objects, but that it is the penalty affixed to a violation of the law. Does not that Senator know that that very penalty has been affixed to it since 1801? Does not that Senator know that the only effect of the bill which passed at the last Congress was to extend the provisions of the law of 1801 to the citizens of Mary-against us, but who now come here and take seats land? It was copied, word for word, from the Maryland law, which had been extended to this District ever since 1801, except as to Virginia and Maryland. There has not been a time since 1801 when that Senator, or any citizen of South Carolina, could have brought a slave here and offered him for sale without incurring the penalty of emancipation. Yet this is now raised as a bugbear with which to frighten grown men at the South. It has not alarmed us much heretofore; we have submitted to it with a very great degree of patience. It is too late now, when it is only extended to the State of Maryland, for us to raise complaints upon the subject. That bill of 1801 was approved by Thomas Jefferson; and Maryland, the only party interested, heartily approves of the law of 1850."

There is another matter to which I must refer. The Senator from South Carolina chose to read an extract from my speech, upon which he put a construction which he knew, or ought to have known, it would not bear. In reference to Mr. Calhoun, I said:

"He was never a secessionist, and I am authorized to say that the proof of it will before long be given to the world. He regarded the attempt of a single State to go out of the Union as madness, and died in that opinion."`

I did not mean to assert that Mr. Calhoun did not believe there might be a right of secession. I used the term "secessionist" as the Senator understands it. And I state again, that Mr. Calhoun did hold the opinion that the secession of a single State would be madness. In a conversation which I had with him, but a short time previous to his death, he said: "We could have carried

cheek-by-jowl with PRESTON KING, RANTOUL, CHASE, HALE, and SUMNER. We have manifested our devotion to the South, as well as our devotion to the Union, and we will do it again whenever a proper occasion arises.

And now, Mr. President, I leave the Senator from South Carolina to the enjoyment of all the laurels he has acquired by his assault upon me.

Mr. RHETT. Mr. President, the course of the Senator from Alabama is precisely that which I expected it would be. I anticipated it in a conversation with a friend before I spoke. He had, without any cause on my part, stigmatized me here on this floor-as one guilty of treason and knavery. I knew very well that a man who would commit such an offence, who would insult with out provocation, would not hesitate, under the exposure I intended to make, to add insult to insult. Therefore, when he yesterday pursued the course which he did pursue, it was precisely what I expected.

I did not, as the Senator charges, brood two months over his attack. He heard what I stated on this point in his presence in the Senate. stated that I neither knew nor heard of what he had said concerning me, until just before I was leaving my home in South Carolina to come to this city. On my arrival here, I waited for the resolution, on which he had attacked me, to come up for consideration. Seeing the course of things, I was in no hurry to read his speech. But, not many days since, about ten days, I suppose, I got the Senator's speech from the folding room, and read it. 1 sent also for a copy of the speech

of the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] who, I heard, had honored me with his notice. It did not require much brooding to determine my course. I made up my mind that it became me, as a man and as a Senator, not to allow these imputations to pass unnoticed in the Senate. I was equally convinced that my reply to the Senator from Alabama would be followed by additional and probably aggravated insult. If he insulted me gratuitously, what right had I to expect that when exposed before the Senate, he would be more forbearing. He is come up precisely to the estimate I had put upon his character.

The Senator from Alabama denies that he meant to charge me with knavery and treason. Now I will read his words again to the Senate, and then I will leave the Senate to judge what their import is; and I will call upon the Senator from Alabama to say, if that is not their import, what they do mean. Here is what he says:

"There was the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. ScaNER,] the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. CHASE,] and the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. HALE,] gathered about him in a sort of fraternal ring, while the countenance of the Senator from New York [Mr. SEWARD] was radiant with gladness. Thus was exhibited the spectacle of an extreme Southern Senator denouncing, in no measured terms, the Government of his country, and declaring himself a disuniouist, on account of alleged wrongs heaped upon him, with four as rabid Abolitionists as this land contains drinking a his words with eager approbation-applauding, cheering, and encouraging him. All this was nothing new to us. however strange it may appear to the plain and honest yeomanry of the country. Nor was it, when calmly considered, at all unnatural.

'A fellow feeling makes us wondrous kind.' There is a sympathy in treason as well as in knavery; and those who are earnestly striving to accomplish the same end need not quarrel about the separate means employed."

Now, here the Senator charges that there is a sympathy between these Senators and myself upon the matter of disunion; and he then observes, that there is a sympathy in treason as well as in knavery. Is not that plainly charging us with teason and knavery? I will leave the Senator from Alabama to explain if that is not his meaning of his words.

Mr. CLEMENS. There is not a Senator on this floor who does not understand it precisely as I do. There is no more charge of knavery against him than there is against the Senator from Massachusetts, or the Senator from Ohio-against whom I never meant to make such a charge. There is a charge of disunion; and he had himself avowed that he was a disunionist.

Mr. RHETT. If that is all the Senator has to say, his words stand unexplained. I ask him to explicate from his words I quote, another meaning than that I put upon them. He does not attempt to do so. He says that they do not contain the charge I allege they do contain. That is denial; but it is no proof. In his failure to show that they contain any other meaning than that I put upon them, he virtually admits that he cannot make his disclaimer consistent with his words. His words mention persons-declares that they are in concert to accomplish a certain end, and then asserts that "there is sympathy in treason as well as knavery." The Senator can take his choice between two alternatives. He was either using words without meaning anything by them, and thus talking nonsense to the Senate, or he did by his words make the charge I deduced from them. No man of sense can draw any other meaning from his words.

Now, Mr. President, I admit that this was a gross and wanton insult, and I admit, too, that acting upon "the code of honor," I ought not to have waited a month, or a day, or a moment, before I had required him to retract or fight. That is the course we are accustomed to pursue in the State I represent. I was perfectly aware of my position. I did not require the Senator from Alabama to tell me what I ought to have done, as a man of the world and a man of honor. But, sir, I am a professor of the religion of Christ. I did not think it proper to challenge the Senator for two very im portant reasons. The first was, because I had another object in view, and still have it, far above the vindication of myself from any personalities or insults that the Senator may have offered. Whilst vindicating myself on this floor, I would also vindicate the great cause with which I am identified. I have very feebly indicated my purposes in my defence, if the Senate has not perceived that I have used the Senator from Alabama, if not for my scorn or laughter, to bring up again

the wrongs perpetrated by this Government upon the South, and the consequent dangers which surround her; and again to place forward for public consideration those great conservative principles arising from State-rights and State-sovereignty, which alone can give her peace or safety.

Sir, without sovereignty in the States-without the right of secession in the States-we live under a consolidated despotism; and I am in favor of the exercise of the right of secession if for no other purpose, for the purpose (as J intimated in the speech delivered the other day) of testing the form of government under which we live.

But my second reason for not calling the Senator from Alabama into the field was of a still higher and more controlling nature. For twenty years I have been a member of the church of Christ. The Senator knows it-everybody knows it. I cannot, and will not, dishonor my religious profession. If he, or any one else, supposes that I am so much afraid of his insults, or the opinion which requires them to be redressed in the field, as to be driven by them to abandon the profession of twenty years, he is entirely mistaken. I frankly admit that I fear God; and that I fear him more than man. Although desirous of the good opinion of all men-(for our usefulness is very largely dependent on the good opinion of our fellows)— we can never obtain it by an abandonment of the principles we profess. True courage is best evinced by the firm maintenance of our principles amidst all temptations and all trials. I did not assail the Senator from Alabama. He assailed me. I have defended myself; and in doing so, if he has seen any fear of him indicated by me, he is welcome to all the pride and gratification it can impart. If firmness in maintaining even wordly principles or a course of worldly policy be any indication of courage, I might not suffer from a comparison with even the Senator from Alabama. I have not here threatened and tried to bully the North; and when the North will not be bullied, and puts upon me the outrages and dishonors to which I had declared resistance, I have not quietly submitted, and then begged the "humble privilege" of supporting them. I have not afterwards turned round upon one of those who was battling with me, and who would not yield, and accused him of fear, of cowardice. Sir, I profess the possession of no extraordinary courage; but I trust I have the courage to support the right and defy the wrong, although backed by an overwhelming public opinion, North and South. I am here alone; but, I trust, alone without fear. Have I quailed before any of you? Senators, answer, if I have ever done so.

The Senator from Alabama says that he did not mean to say that the Senators he speaks of in his speech made any noise in cheering, applauding, and encouraging me. He says, he supposed every body understood him to mean that they did not make any noise. Those who were present here, and knew that there was no noise by applause and cheering, might have known that the fact was not 80. I will not say they could have known his construction of the words he uses, for the words themselves are too plain for misunderstanding. What is the meaning of applauding and cheering? If the gentleman will turn to the dictionary, he will find that to applaud is to clap with the hands, strike with the feet, or make some noise to indicate approbation. And what is cheering in a popular assembly or deliberative body? Why, intimating by the voice approbation of what is said. The Senator says that these gentlemen not only cheered and applauded me, but that they also encouraged me. If he meant that to applaud and cheer were equivalent to encouragement, why put applaud and cheer before encouragement? He has taken that speech, and sent it down into Alabama. He sent it to the yeomanry, who, he says, will be astenished at the scene he depicts. I have no doubt that they will be prodigiously astonished, to hear that abolition Senators on this floor applauded and cheered me when I spoke; and probably will never be undeceived as to the truthfulness of what they have read in his speech. The Senator must do one of two things to get rid of the predicament in which he has placed himself; he must stultify himself as to his knowledge of the English language, or he did mean to say that these Senators did applaud and cheer me here in the Senate. Was that assertion true? It is totally untrue. It is untrue in fact, and untrue in the reasons he as

signed for its existence. He has not attempted to show that the words he used meant anything be|| side their plain, undoubted signification.

Mr.CLEMENS. There was no regular caucus. A few members met for another purpose, and the friends of Mr. Fitzpatrick, being a majority of those present, nominated him; but the next day there was a caucus, and the other resolutions were rescinded.

Mr. RHETT. Well, Mr. Fitzpatrick was the nominee of the Democratic party. Was not that true?

Mr. CLEMENS. He claimed to be so, but I denied it.

Mr. RHETT. The Senator, then, denies that a caucus was held, or that Mr. Fitzpatrick was the nominee of the Democratic party. He certainly was not its nominee. A Mr. Davis, a Whig in the Whig caucus, (who the Senator says is a man of honor, and was his friend,) was authorized by him to express his views and opinions to the Whig party at a Whig caucus, Do I understand that to be the case?

He says further, that I acknowledged myself to be a traitor. I acknowledge myself to be a traitor! When, and where? Here is another of the Senator's facts. When the late Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Foote] thought proper to assert that secessionists were traitors, did I stand still here under the imputation? I could not be a traitor, under my view of the Constitution, unless I were, like that Senator from Alabama, a rank consolidationist. Standing, as I do, a citizen of South Carolina, owing allegiance to her as my sovereign, I cannot be a traitor in obeying her mandates. And, if she thinks proper to secede from this Union-as she rightfully has the power to do-my duty and my allegiance are due to her. Sir, the traitors to this Government, if any there be, are the consolidationists. They are traitors against the States, to whom alone they owe allegiance, because they deny their sovereignty. It is they who would break down the whole fabric of the Government, Mr. RHETT. As the gentleman has corrected and make it simply an Austrian despotism, in me in one respect, I take it for granted he will corwhich their reserved rights would be taken away rect me again if I should fall into error. He goes from the States. I do not say they are traitors; to the Whig caucus. He authorizes a friend, a but I say, between the two classes of politicians-Whig in the Whig caucus, to state his opinions the State-rights men, who maintain the rights of the sovereign States, affirming that they are parties to the constitutional compact, and have a right to secede from it whenever they please-between them, and those who deny the right of the States to secede, who deny that the States are sovereign, and contend here for a consolidated despotism-if there be treason, it is on the part of the latter. If any are traitors, they are the traitors-foul, usurping traitors to their States.

The Senator from Alabama further says, that I brought here into the Senate a private affair-the statement concerning him, which Judge Buford and Mr. McCall have put forth in Alabama for more than a month past. When I came to the city I found this statement here. The Senator says it is a private matter. It was no private matter. It was a matter affecting the representative of a sovereign State, and the dignity of this Senate. And while he talks of expulsion, and says that I wished to vote to expel John Quincy Adams-an assertion entirely gratuitous-I can tell him, that if the facts which these gentlemen assert, and have published in the public papers, be true, and they had been brought forward before the Senate when he came here to take his seat, he never would have been received among his compeers in this illustrious body. No, sir; never. And I am not sure if he had taken his seat, and a resolution had been offered to expel him from the Senate, but that a majority of this body would have passed the resolution. On this point, I will take nothing for true but what the Senator himself admits. Mr. President, you know Judge Buford. I know you do; and a more honorable and upright and truthful man does not live in this broad land. I know him also. I do not know Mr. McCall. But now, admitting that there is a mistake as to the fact that the Senator gave a written pledge to uphold the Whig party, which these gentlemen assert was seen and read by them, signed by him, what is it that I understand the Senator to admit? I understand him to admit that which I asserted, that at the caucus of the Democratic party in Alabama, he and Mr. Fitzpatrick were the candidates for the Senate, and he was defeated.

Mr. CLEMENS. No, sir; I never admitted any such thing.

Mr. RHETT. Were you not voted for in the caucus of the Democratic party?

Mr. CLEMENS. If you wish to know the facts in relation to the matter, I will tell them to you.

Mr. RHETT. I wish to know the truth. Mr. CLEMENS. Some members got together for the purpose of consultation-not to hold a caucus. Mr. Fitzpatrick's friends, finding they had a majority of those present in his favor, turned in and nominated him. The very next day, I believe a majority of that caucus met and rescinded their resolutions. There never was any more of that; and the Democrats who voted for me, represented a majority of ten thousand of the Democratic voters of the State.

Mr. RHETT. I wish to know the truth of this matter. I understand the Senator now to say that there was no caucus of the Democratic party,

Mr. CLEMENS, (in his seat.) I shall answer no more questions now.

on public matters. I say nothing about the written pledge said to have been given; but what is the result? The Whig party, as a party, come out and vote for him in the Legislature, and he is elected a Senator of the United States, and, further still, they have been his supporters ever since. 1 do not wish at all to assert anything concerning the Senator which is not true, but thus far I understand him to admit is true; and they place the Senator in a position very little different from that which the assertions of Judge Buford and Mr. McCall place him in. As to the conflict of veracity between the Senator and the writers of these letters, I leave that to the people of Alabama to determine. The facts asserted were not private matters. They were public matters--public men acting on great public interests, and affecting the well-being of a whole State, and the dignity of this illustrious body.

I shall not notice all the points the Senator has made this morning in his vindication, but only a few, rather on account of their public importance, than for his discussion of them. I stated that the current of our legislation in admitting new States was, that Congress passed a law previous to the State being admitted into the Union for her to make a Constitution and become a State; and that after thus being a State she was admitted into the Union. That was my proposition. The Senator asserts that Florida and other States came into the Union without any such act. Sir, he is totally misinformed. Before those States came in, there was an act passed by Congress by which they were authorized to form a State and to come into the Union. It is very true, as in the case of Florida, that the people had, previous to the act of Congress, made a constitution; but they did not come in here until Congress passed the law by which they were authorized to make themselves a State. Congress passed the law first. The people of Florida then adopted the Constitution which had previously been made, organized themselves, and presented themselves here for admission. So it was with the other States. The question between the Senator and myself was this: He insisted that California was constitutionally admitted into the Union, because it was the practice, the universal practice, in this Government to admit Territories as States into the Union, and that the fact of their admission made them States. That was the proposition which he asserted. I said that, on the contrary, the practice had been that the Territories should be organized into free and independent States, by the sanction of an act of Congress, and thus being States, they were admitted into the Union, and that in this way only could the words of the Constitution be fulfilled-which says "that new States may be admitted by Congress." The Senator from Alabama has not touched the point in his remarks which he originally supported and advanced, nor do his authorities.

The Senator says that the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, with the penalty of emancipation, was in force here before. If that was the case, will you, Mr. President, or any one else, be so good as to tell us why Congress passed any law at all as a part of the compromise? Why

should there have been so much contention as to the clause making emancipation the penalty of bringing negroes here for sale, if that was the law already? Here, again, the Senator is at fault. We all know that there were in different parts of the city slave-pens, as they were called, where slaves were openly brought in and sold. It was to suppress that evil the law was passed, with the penalty of emancipation.

The Senator from Alabama alleges he did not maintain that Mr. Calhoun was not a secessionist

in principle, but only that he was against a State exercising that power. The Senator has forgotten his words. Here they are:

"John C. Calhoun and George McDuffie examined the resolutions of '98 and '99 for the right of secession, and could not find it. They found, as they thought, nullification; but nullification is itself a denial of secession."

Now, is not that affirming distinctly that John C. Calhoun never affirmed the right of secession The Senator has forgotten his own speech. There appears to be a peculiar proclivity on the part of the Senator continually to bring in Mr. Calhoun as authority to support his views, but always with a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of his opinions. Speaking of the dismemberment of Texas, which he defends in his December speech, he says:

"The next measure of which complaint has been made, is the bill settling the boundary of Texas. Well, sir, it so happens that this also is a Southern, not a Northern measure. It was introduced by a Southern man, passed by Southern votes, and ratified by the people of the only South

ern State who had any direct interest in it. It further hap

pens, that Mr. Calhoun, the great leader of the South, during his life, has left on record his deliberate opinion that Texas never had a shadow of title to one foot of the territory we surrendered to the General Government. He asserted that the true boundary of Texas was the middle of the desert between the Neuces and the Rio Grande. We gave to Texas nine hundred miles on the Rio Grande, which, in his opinion, did not belong to her."

whenever they think proper. Sovereignty cannot be divided. There cannot be two supreme authorities that is an absurdity; and it is on that point that it seems to me that the confusion of the Senator exists. He asserts that there is no sovereignty in the States; and then, in the next breath, he says they are sovereign in certain particulars. They are sovereign in all particulars, or in none. This Government acts by their authority, and by no other authority-and they are thus sovereign; or this Government is the supreme authority, and they have no sovereignty. The distinction, which the Senator does not seem to understand, is between sovereignty, and the powers of sovereignty. I do not mean to go into the various matters of explanation concerning the speech which I made. I have put down the Senator from Alabama exactly in his own words. I have read to the Senate and shall print what he has said. It will be read. If his replies are sufficient to refute his own words, as I have placed them down, be it so. I only say, that, according to my conception of it, he has failed in his effort. There is nothing, in my judgment, which the gentleman has said, that refutes the antagonistic positions he took in his former speeches and his December speech. They are totally inconsistent and irreconcilable. But if he can reconcile them, it is very well for him to do so.

Mr. President, when I rose yesterday, it was my intention to have addressed myself also to certain remarks of the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS,] but my strength failed; and the controversy with the Senator from Alabama has taken up so much of the time of the Senate, that I feel it would be a trespass to detain them longer on. these matters. I shall, therefore, reserve what I have to say to a more convenient opportunity, when I hope to address myself to the Senator from

Mr. CLEMENS. Mr. President, I wish to add but a word or two. The Senator from South Carolina says that he anticipated when he made this assault upon me that it would be repelled, and met, as he terms it, by renewed insult. The Senator then placed himself in a very disagreeable situation, with very little provocation.

Here is a gross misrepresentation of Mr. Cal-Michigan. houn's opinions. Mr. Calhoun asserted that the Nueces was the boundary of Texas, before we acquired Mexican territory by the Mexican war. It was upon the question of the Mexican war, when the boundary of Texas was disputed and disputable, that Mr. Calhoun said her boundary did not extend to the Rio Grande. The people of Texas and the Government here took the ground that Texas did extend to the Rio Grande. Hence troops were ordered to the Rio Grande, and the Mexican war arose. But when the war was ended, and, by a treaty, the Rio Grande was made the boundary of Texas, by a map attached thereto, who ever heard Mr. Calhoun deny that the Rio Grande was the boundary of Texas? That which was before disputable, and occasioned the war, was settled by the war. And now, because Mr. Calhoun, previous to that settlement, expressed such an opinion as to the boundary of Texas, the Senator says that Mr. Calhoun was in favor of the dismemberment of Texas after the treaty was formed.

One word more upon an important subject, and I have done. The sovereignty of the States is of the very last importance. The Senator from Alabama, although he complains of the confusion of ideas and language in others concerning it, seems to me to have himself no very clear or distinct ideas of sovereignty. I agree with him that sovereignty must be the supreme authority in a State. He lays down the proposition, and I assent to it; but how, then, does he talk of the States and the General Government being both sovereign? Who ever heard of two sovereignties in a State? One must be supreme; and that which is supreme is sovereign. Sovereignty is the supreme, ultimate authority. That authority, I maintain, resides in the States. And yet here, because certain powers of sovereignty are exercised by the General Government, he claims that the States have surrendered all their sovereignty. A man has powers and faculties, and may use them in concert or subordination to others. Has he therefore destroyed himself? So with sovereignty. It is the highest authority of the land. But it may exercise its powers of sovereignty in concert with other States. It may do so by special treaty; it may do so in the form of government in which we are. But is sovereignty therefore parted with or annihilated? Surely not. Certain powers of sovereignty are exercised together by the States through the General Government; but the States have not surrendered their sovereignty. They are still supreme, and may resume those powers

As for his reasons for not replying in the manner in which I thought he ought to have replied, I have only this to say: I am the equal of that Senator in all things-equal in place, equal in learning, equal in reputation, equal in the estimation of this Senate, equal in the estimation of the country-and I thought, of course, when he made his attack, that he expected and desired it to terminate without the Senate. As to his being a member of the church, I never heard of that until last night. When I did hear it, I determined at once to use no more offensive expressions, although I could not help thinking that it ought to have prevented the provocation rather than proved an excuse for avoiding the consequences. How could I suppose that he was a professing christian-that night after night he had laid his head upon his pillow, with the prayer upon his lips "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, "while he was cherishing in his heart of hearts a malignant bitterness which would have done credit to a fiend? How could I suppose that he was planning even at the foot of the altar a cold-blooded and deliberate assault upon the reputation of a fellow man?

As for the Buford letter to which he has again alluded to-day, I do not mean to trouble the Senate with any remarks about it. It is a matter between me and my constituents, and I will settle it with them. Nor have I any reply to make to his criticisms on the words he has read; if he will not see, it is his fault-if he cannot, it is not my province to enlighten him.

At the close of the discussion, the Senate adjourned.

IN SENATE.

MONDAY, March 1, 1852.

Prayer by the Rev. LITTLETON F. MORGAN. Mr. BRIGHT presented a memorial of inhabitants of Indiana, praying that the transportation of the mails on Sunday may be prohibited by law; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Also, two memorials of assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Indiana, praying

additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. ATCHISON presented the memorial of James M. Gatewood, praying the appointment of a tribunal to review the decisions of the late Board of Commissioners for the settlement of claims of American citizens against Mexico; which was referred to the select committee appointed on the subject.

Mr. HAMLIN presented the memorial of Joseph Adams and others, assistant marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Maine, praying additional compensation; which was referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. WADE presented several petitions of deputy marshals for taking the Seventh Census in Ohio, praying additional compensation; which were referred to the Committee of Claims.

Mr. SEWARD presented a petition of Daniel Palmer for himself and other soldiers who were disabled by the loss of limbs in the last war with Great Britain, praying an increase of the pensions allowed them; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

New York, remonstrating against an extension Also, a petition of citizens of Wyoming county, of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Also, the petition of James McGregor, jr., as signee of Anthony W. Jones, praying to have his patent ante-dated; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. DODGE, of Wisconsin, presented a me morial of the Legislature of Wisconsin, praying that so much of the military reservation at Fort Howard as is not required for the use of that post may be disposed of; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. DOUGLAS presented a petition of citizens of Philadelphia county, Pennsylvania, remonstrating against the further extension of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Of fice.

Mr. BORLAND presented a petition of citizens of Arkansas, praying a grant of land to the Arkansas Valley Railroad company, for the construction of a railroad from Van Buren to Fort Smith, in that State; which was ordered to be laid

on the table.

Also, a memorial of citizens of Arkansas, pray ing the establishment of a mail route from Grand Glaize to Searcy, in that State; which was referred to the Committee on the Post Office and Post Roads.

Mr. FISH presented a petition of citizens of the city and county of New York, remonstrating against the further extension of Woodworth's patent for a planing machine; which was referred to the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office.

Mr. DAVIS presented the memorial of John Connell, in behalf of sundry merchants residing in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Balimore, praying the return of duties paid under the tariff of 1828, on goods which were ordered previous to the adoption of the tariff, but did not arrive until after it went into effect; which was referred to the Committee on Finance.

Mr. PRATT presented the memorial of Henry May, administrator of William A. Slacum, de ceased, praying the payment of his claim against the Government of Mexico; which was referred to the select committee appointed on the subject.

of

Mr. BELL submitted documents in support the claim of William Read to compensation for services in the Indian war during the year 1793. which were referred to the Committee on Revolu tionary Claims.

Mr. DODGE, of Iowa, presented a memorial of citizens of lowa, praying a grant of land to the State for the construction of the Burlington and Missouri river railroad; which was referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Also, communications from Joseph A. Kelting, in favor of a grant of land for the benefit of the town of Kanesville, Iowa; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands.

Mr. JONES, of Iowa, presented the proceedings of a convention of delegates from fourteen counties in the State of lowa, held at Ouumwa, in favor of a donation of land for the Burlington and Missouri river railroad; which were referred to the Committee on Public Lands.